Fateh Muhammad respondent had brought a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 7-10-1974. The suit was contested by the petitioner/defendant and was dismissed by the trial Court on 4-2-1987. On appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff the case was remanded by the Appellate Court. On remand the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 31-1-1991 where against the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional. District Judge, Sargodha on 5-12-1992. The concurrent judgments are sought to be challenged through this revision petition.
2. The petitioner was initially represented by a learned counsel who unfortunately died. The petitioner was given number of opportunities to arrange representation through counsel, but he declined to avail the opportunity and stated that he would present his case personally. He has been heard today. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised an objection that the revision petition was time-barred. It is contended that besides no plausible reason for condonation of delay has been given in C.M. No,2-C of 1994. Section 5 of Limitation Act being not applicable, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed by him on Allah Dino and another v.
Muhammad Shah and others (2001 SCM R 286).
3. Admittedly the revision petition was filed after Limitation C.M. No,2-C of 1994 was filed under section 5 of the -Limitation Act for condonation of delay: Paragraphs Nos, 3 and 4 of the application which may be relevant for this purpose are reproduced hereunder:-
(3) That the petitioner is filing the revision petition not in time which is neither intentional or deliberate.
(4) That the petitioner fell ill therefore, could not file the revision petition in time.
'The statement in the application as to the petitioner falling ill is too general; Neither the nature of the ailment nor duration of the same has been mentioned. Such a general statement can hardly be accepted to denude the other side of the rights having been accrued due to lapse of Limitation.
Moreover, section 5 of the Limitation Act has been held to be not applicable to a revision petition filed under section 115 of C.P.C. in Allah Dino and another (supra).
In view thereof, the application for condonation of delay has no merit and is dismissed. As a result whereof, this revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. No orders as to costs.